Show and Prove: Bill O'Reilly's Hip-Hop Problem

Seitz: "Well, you're never boring, Bill. I don't know if I agree with you, but you're not boring."

"The code of ethics is to tell the truth as you know it and not to distort anything or exclude anything. That's basically the big tent under which we operate..."

"The Nielsen ratings for May are in. And once again, THE FACTOR was the highest rated cable news program in the world."

Bill O'Reilly is a ratingsist. In thrall to Grand Wizard Nielsen, he's willing to do whatever it takes to make sure The O'Reilly Factor gets its two million-plus nightly viewers. And why not? Ratings bring him millions of dollars each year. Ratings give him the power to police the moral fitness of our nation's soft drink spokespeople.

The O'Reilly Factor airs at 8 P.M., every weeknight. Similar shows air at the same time on CNN and MSNBC, but O'Reilly knows those shows aren't his true competition. Instead, he battles the sitcoms, dramas, and reality series that air in prime-time too: he knows that in order to succeed, he has to make The O'Reilly Factor just as funny as Will and Grace, just as dramatic as CSI, and just as newsworthy as, well, Will and Grace.

In other words, while O'Reilly may describe his show as "news analysis," there's very little news on it, and very little analysis. Instead, there's outrage and bombast, and most importantly of all, villains. Without good villains - cartoonish, larger-than-life, dependably dastardly villains - you can't have good melodrama. When O'Reilly finds a villain that resonates with his audience, he elevates that villain from newsmaker to stock player. A few of the rogues who make up O'Reilly's repertory company? O.J. Simpson. Hillary Clinton. The ACLU. Hollywood phonies. And his all-time bete noire, the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

O'Reilly likes to accuse Jackson of "playing the race card," but in O'Reilly's own deck of media manipulation, Jackson functions as the trump card he most often turns to when dramatizing one of his most popular themes, black failure. In general, O'Reilly is always careful to acknowledge that "racism exists on many, many different levels in many ethnic groups among many people." (07/02/99) But such concessions are always made quickly, in passing, en route to what he characterizes as the most pertinent factors defining black experience in America:

"Will African-Americans break away from the pack thinking and reject immorality because that's the reason the family's breaking apart - alcohol, drugs, infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn't seem - and I'm broadly speaking here, but a lot of African-Americans won't reject it." (02/25/99)

"The community itself has to rise up and say, 'We don't want this stuff in our neighborhood.' There are many, many more honest black Americans than there are criminal black Americans. There's just - the criminals would...be outnumbered 50 to 1...Every neighborhood has to organize and say, 'No more,' and work with the police rather than alienating the police..." (07/08/99)

"I believe that the Reverend [Jesse Lee Peterson]...is trying to say that black people too long have blamed their problems on whites, and if they would take more responsibility for their situations, it would be better for everybody, that the government - that the government can't help them if they don't help themselves." (03/12/99)

In other words, after the breezy concessions about the existence of racism on many levels, and the breezy presumptions about African-American pack thinking, and the breezy disclaimers about the breezy presumptions ("I'm broadly speaking here"), it's really all about personal responsibility. And self-reliance. And to further discredit the idea that various institutional biases do in fact play at least some role in determining black experience in America, O'Reilly is careful to discredit, at every opportunity, the people who promote this idea most emphatically: namely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Jackson and Sharpton are the kind of scapegoats any farmer of moral outrage would pray to have in his barnyard: they're outspoken enough to pass as a threat, but flawed enough to easily condemn. And as it turns out, hip-hop offers O'Reilly the same dynamic. Its antisocial elements allow him to criticize the black people (and the white ones) (but mostly the black ones) who make it. Its popularity allows him to demand why more black people aren't speaking out against its negative aspects. And, finally, the charged nature of such discourse allows O'Reilly to criticize the black people (and the white ones) who claim that his coverage of hip-hop is racist.

How is it racist to protest the glorification of crime, misogyny, and drug usage?

How is it racist to champion the welfare of "children trapped in poverty"? (05/24/02)

In 1999, O'Reilly told FrontPage magazine that television producers "only have 22 minutes, so every day they make decisions on what you see...That's how the bias crept in - [over] what is covered, not how it's covered."

The O'Reilly Factor is an hour-long show, so not counting commercials, he himself has about 44 minutes a night to cover, or not cover, stories. Since The O'Reilly Factor's 1996 debut, dozens of segments mentioning "hip-hop," "rap music," or "gangsta rap" have aired. Occasionally, guests try to explain that hip-hop isn't limited to gangsta rap, or that hip-hop can have a positive impact on a person's life, but to date, in every hip-hop-related segment that The O'Reilly Factor has broadcast, Bill O'Reilly has reached the same conclusion: "this rap stuff is a negative thing." (09/25/02)

To remain faithful to this conclusion, however, there are certain things that Bill O'Reilly must ignore. For example, he has to close his eyes to success stories like Russell Simmons, Master P, and Karl Kani, and the positive impact hip-hop has had on black entrepreneurism. He has to overlook hip-hop organizations like Rap the Vote, which encourages voter registration amongst hip-hop fans, and Hip Hop Congress, which "uses the culture of Hip Hop to inspire young people to get involved in social action, civic service, and cultural creativity." He has to disregard the way hip-hop can bring people of all races and classes together (even if it's only to make music videos...)

But it's not just tunnel vision that O'Reilly employs in pursuit of the ratings that hip-hop fear-mongering can deliver. He also levels charges at hip-hop - it's marketed to children! it's damaging to children! - without making any effort to prove such charges. He spews disinformation about Ludacris. And Jesse Jackson. And MTV. He "slaps," "slams," and "smashes" hip-hop figures, but pulls his punches when it comes to condemning other forms of entertainment in similar fashion.

Are his actions ethical? No. Fair? No. Responsible? No. But luckily for O'Reilly, Fox News doesn't pay him to be ethical, fair, or responsible. It pays him to deliver ratings.

The Children's Crusade Unlike so many professional knuckle-smackers, Bill O'Reilly tempers his rectitude with a frank, if somewhat hoary, sensualism. His main paycheck comes from billionaire vulgarian Rupert Murdoch. He's written for the house organ of bourgeois bohemianism, Playboy. He laced his 374-page Rorschach test of a novel, Those Who Trespass, with "brutally sadistic" murders and sex scenes so hot they could melt a glacier (of Velveeta). ("He gently teased her by licking the areas around her most sensitive erogenous zone.") When it comes to hard-working, decent Americans watching, say, My Big Fat Greek Gangbang in the privacy of their own homes, O'Reilly says he has no desire to be the "sex police." (11/04/02) He thinks it's cool for extremely discreet people to be gay (as long as they don't act too gay about it). He enjoys a little saucy flirting with guests like porn star Jenna Jameson. ("Doesn't it hurt your feelings when people judge you and call you whore, slut, things like that?") (08/26/02)

But as much as Bill O'Reilly may love chowing down on a hot juicy erogenous zone, murder as light entertainment, and extramarital dirty-talk, he also loves America's most precious resource, its Nielsen ratings.

And in part of his effort to obtain those ratings, O'Reilly wages an ongoing crusade to protect children - and especially the vulnerable, disadvantaged, one-parent children of the inner city - from his competition.

It's true, of course, that pop culture isn't always suitable for children - but how exactly does one determine what poses a threat and what doesn't? To an untrained observer, answers can be hard to divine, but for an eagle-eyed warden of decency like O'Reilly, corrupting influences are as easy to spot as a big black skunk in a field of vanilla ice cream.

Take, for example, Britney Spears. Because her music is exclusively marketed to middle-aged men who show mad crazee luv for aspirational teen-pop, O'Reilly has no beef with her. But then take someone like Serena Wiliams. Williams is a professional tennis player, and as several federal investigations (and Ralph Nader) have shown, professional tennis mostly appeals to (though some would say "preys on") little girls without any sportswear judgement. Thus, a different standard applies: "See, now, here's Britney Spears, who I don't have too much of it, she's dressed up like a dominatrix here, but that's just rock and roll nonsense. There she is, it doesn't bother me. But Serena Williams, I come back to that, in the sense that there are a lot of little girls watching here, and they got this outfit on, and, all right, you have a 10-year-old girl, she's watching Serena, what do you say to her?" (09/03/02)

My problem with O' Reilly's (c)rap coverage is that when it comes time to interview some of the peope responible for the music (most recently Russell Simmons) he goes easy on 'em. It may be because he'll never get to interview these guests again if he embarasses them; who would want to go on a show when they know they are going to be destroyed?

But i think he dropped the ball wth Simmons. The discussion regarded a nationwde publik skool promotion making rapper Jay-Z "Principal for the Day." He softballed Simmons throughout the interview. What's worse, it seemed O'Reilly was not as informed about rap culture as I would have liked him to be. one of the "archived" clips they had of Jay-Z showed him on stage (somewhere) with porn star Ron Jeremy! (Don't ask how I know that was him... that's not the point!) That would have been great ammunition to use against Simmons, but he din't think of it, or didn't look at the clips beforehand. He claimed he had Jay-Z's lyrics in front of him, but never read them out loud; it's a good he didn't; Simmons would have been put in the position to defend the indefensible. That would be good for ratings, right? Simmons' claims that (c)rap was a 'positive' influence on American culture was also not challenged, which was a little disappointing.

Buuuuuuuut... for all my complaints, O'Reilly is one of the only ones championing this issue, and I'm glad he is doing it.

I guess it shows I'm an old fart, but to me all of "Rap" and "Hip Hop" are simply primitive noise. And I use the word "primitive" advisedly.

Compare the best of it (if there is a "best") with any of Bach's works.

And there's the rub. The "Hip Hop" drives out real music.

As in "the bad drives out the good". Hell, "Row Row Row Your Boat" is more musical than "Rap".

Now. Not many kids (maybe 5%?) appreciate classical music. But I wonder what kids raised on "Hip Hop" will listen to when they're 40. I didn't like much classical when I was a teen; now it is over 50% of what I listen to.

Someone once said that "God gave music to man that he might worship without speaking," or something similar. Listen to the Tocatta and Fugue [which Boris considers the single finest work of music in history]. Bach is proclaiming the glory of God and the wonder of the universe; in the words of Neal Stephenson, "...it was as if the math teacher had suddenly played the good part of Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G Minor on a pipe organ the size of the Universe in one merciless descending ever-mutating chord, as if his foot is thrusting through skidding layers of garbage until it finally strikes bedrock. In particular, the final steps of the organist's explanation were like a falcon's dive through layer after layer of pretense and illusion, thrilling or sickening or confusing depending on what you were. The heavens were riven open. Lawrence glimpsed choirs of angels ranking off into geometrical infinity."

And what is "Ice T" or whoever compared to that?

--Boris

Simmons claims rap:

1. Improves race relations!!! Bullshit. All it does is make white kids (who buy up to 70% of rap music) sink to the level of urban blacks in terms of dress, language, attitude, values, command of the English language, and education. I guess he is right, in his own, twisted way... If everybody acts like a "hustla", "pimp", "ho", "bitch", and "g", and other words they use that, of course I can't mention, everybody gets along.

2. (rap)...is insprational!!! Simmons mentions the story of Run-DMC's voter registration drive. Simmons claims RunDMC's message is one of " Empower yourselves, resist some of the temptation on the street, go to school, and go to church..." While RunDMC was one of raps most 'positive' groups, as far as messages go, that's not saying much. A look at their lyrics proves this to be a little bit of a strech, especially if one goes by their big hits: a remake of Aerosmith's "Walk This Way", (a story about getting girls) "My adidas", (ode to the sneaker) "It's Tricky", (it's hard to rock a rhyme!) "Peter Piper" (frivolous "nursery rhap") "Mary Mary" (troubles with a girl)and "Down with the King". ("King" meaning God; but other than that, no real message)

RunDMC are harmless, non-threatening, and pioneers in the genre, this is true. But Simmons is embellishing--using revisionist history on O' Reilly, who has not done his homework--and O' Reilly takes him for granted.

And by the way, who said voter registration is automatically a good thing? especially if it is done in urban, Democrat strongholds. How do you think the kids will regiser? Who do you think they will vote for? What do you think they will vote for? How do the voters come to their decision of party affiliation? What information are they given? Is it biased, or fair? My guess is that the artists themselves have no answers to these questions.

3. (rap)... has spawned a "poetry" movement! "Bowel movement" is a more accurate term for Simmons'/HBO's "Def Poetry Jam"--a far left-wing, radical, PC, anti-establishment excuse to promote the typical left-wing, radical, PC, anti-establishment politics/agenda. Throw in disgusting language, perversion, violence, (and all the other stuff you'd find on HBO) to "keep it real", and you have an idea of what it is. It's not art. It's not poetry, it's HBO! 'Just an excuse to talk about violence, sex...the same old stuff found in rap. What is the excuse for the profanity? Simmons explains:

"what they talk about -- you may be offended by the profanity and the words, but the profanity is in the condition and the suffering in their communities...

" I'm not buyin' it, are you?

Serena does wear an outfit that can serve as a distraction depending on where you are positioned. However for O'Reilly to pick on her (because some lil' girls watch tennis) and let Britney free is simply hypocrisy!

Anyways i have always thought O'Reilly is one of the biggest spinners out there, and on other threads i have given examples of where he has changed his mind about an issue (it happens when one week the person he is 'interviewing' supports an issue and Oreilly promptly unleashes his acerbic tongue-lashing; and then the next week another person takes the opposite side forcing Oreilly to attack him as well).

It is not news-reporting or anything like that ....simply entertainment where OReilly does what he has to do to raise ratings.

And there is nothing wrong with that (after all the guy has a family to feed) ....but he should stop saying that it is a 'no spin zone' because when it comes to spin O'Reilly can give a lot of DemocRats a run for their money (and win handsdown).

Serena's outfits are not particularly revealing, but you just can't hide the fact that she's built like a brick house. That's about the only thing that gets me to watch any tennis at all. Kournikova, feh.

I totally agree with you!

And by the way add the fact that Serena (unlike Pournikova) is an actual tennis juggernaut who can truly play the game (and has the titles and championships to prove it). Pornikova on the other hand has never won a single title, and her title to fame is that there are many oldish desperately trying to download fake nudie pics of her.

She is not a tennis star (Serena, Martina, Monica, Steffi ad infinitum are tennis greats who have proved themselves on the courts .....Kournikova on the other hand simply ensures that the photographers get a peek at her bending to pick up a 'fallen' ball and hopes that will put her in the weekend magazine supplement).

Serena on the other hand will certainly (barring injury) stay at the apex of female tennis for a long time to come (M. Narvatilova anyone?). She has already won virtually all championships ....and those few she has not her sister has.

Let's see Pornikova do that .....

The author of this article is obviously either a racist black or a liberal that panders to them. I don't agree with O'Reilly on many things, but on this issue he is dead on! The truth hurts and since the (RAT) plantation blacks and their keepers have yet to figure out a way to have such shows removed from the air, which they would doubtless do if they could to silence a view they don't like, then they try the next best thing they have...attack and smear. It won't work though, not as long as there are those out there who are sick of the liberal bias and want truth and balance and there is a network willing to give it to them, which Fox will gladly do as long as they get the ratings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.